jazzyjess: Pro-life is misogyny.

Jess (

jazzyjess) wrote,
@ 2004-12-20 21:33:00

Current mood:	weird
Current music:	radiohead

Pro-life is misogyny.

"The belief that something is a “baby” the second sperm meets egg
comes straight out of the patriarchal notion that any important,
creative work must be done by men.
Therefore, it’s a “baby” when the man has done his job,
and the woman’s work is just servant-class maintenance,
using her body to attend to the man’s creation before and after it’s born."
[- Amanda at Pandagon]

Pro-life is misogyny.

pass it:

It's not about the sad stories of women who never got to know their unborn children,
it's not about the fetuses "victim" of abortion,
it's not about the morality involved,
nor is it about the women who decided on abortion and now regret their choice.
It is about the government placing limitations on women and their lives, as well as the other 90% of the pro-choice movement which involves sexual health, education and awareness, contraception, counseling, adoption, and more.

(39 comments) - (Post a new comment)

	in_deskyze 2004-12-20 08:17 pm UTC (link)
	wtf? how? (Reply to this) (Thread)

	jazzyjess 2004-12-20 08:47 pm UTC (link)
	pro-life (or anti-choice for that matter) implies that you value a fetus over a woman. how else would you label valuing something that isn't even a living human over a woman and her life, health, body and dreams? (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

j_z
2004-12-20 08:58 pm UTC (link)

the pro-life opinion is that the baby is a living human and it has a life ahead of it. it's partially religious as well, as it alludes to the baby's soul and how a person shouldn't have a choice. they also believe that the woman will later mourn the baby.
but, i think people who don't believe a person has a choice need to have all of their choices made for them, since it's only fair. i believe i should be excluded from certain taxes and i shouldn't have to do things that endanger my life or the lives of others, but i don't actually have that choice.
paragraph three: lol.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

ah here's a perfect justification

jazzyjess
2004-12-20 09:21 pm UTC (link)

To me, the pro-life position is fundamentally disrespectful of women. It denies them the right to make decisions regarding their bodies and futures. It subverts their desires and needs in favor of the perceived ones of a fetus- a being that is incapable of any kind of perception. It treats them as nothing more than a vessel, a fetal container.

That's what their rhetoric boils down to no matter how much they sugarcoat it. All of the pro-prevention and pro-social-programs rhetoric does is distract from the reality that they fundamentally value fetuses more than the women they inhabit. Pro-prevention: "They're not ready yet, but they will be!" Pro-Social Programs: "All women are forced into abortion by the bad society in which we live. If we make life better for them, abortions will disappear!" To them, women want nothing more than to be mothers, we just have to LET them.

It's cheap, asinine, and thoroughly misogynistic in that it relegates women to the role of babymakers, of mothers, and refuses to acknowledge that women don't want that kind of life for themselves, that they have better things to do than gestate fetuses-- and when faced with a choice between the two, they'll choose that other, more important thing.

I've had an abortion, and my story always makes the heads of pro-lifers spin off. I did it not just because having a child would have prevented me from going to college, having a life, and would have resulted in severe family conflict and the loss of my boyfriend, but because I simply did not want a child at that point in my life. They just can't fathom it- that I made that decision with no pressure or anything from those around me, of my own free will. I'm clearly not evil, misguided, or stupid, either.

I think that clearly highlights what's wrong with them- they can't understand the women that exist outside of the pretty little boxes that they've crafted for them. I have no problem calling them out on being misogynistic. They are. -

desperateopiate

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: ah here's a perfect justification

corduroyskirt
2004-12-20 09:40 pm UTC (link)

see, reading that, i can understand what the colorbar means. but by just putting out the colorbar without any sort of explanation, i was confused. there's always more than one opinion about a matter, even about being pro-choice and totally excluding pro-life. i don't think that you can just narrow it all down and say pro-life is exclusively misogyny.. maybe that's just me.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	Re: ah here's a perfect justification (Anonymous) 2004-12-20 11:53 pm UTC (link)
	bull shit. we all know pro life is the real shit. as long as america continues to value rights over responsibilities we will lose companionship outside the U.S. and cause enemies as well as dysfunctional mindsets here in our own citizens. troy (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	Re: ah here's a perfect justification a_view_so_cruel 2004-12-23 08:24 pm UTC (link)
	I think we're causing enemies anyway, and Bush's "chriiiiiistian morality first, everything else second" approach is dividing the people in america. the only dysfunctional mindsets in this nation are the religious right. (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	Re: ah here's a perfect justification jazzyjess 2004-12-31 07:53 pm UTC (link)
	x2! (Reply to this) (Parent)

	Re: ah here's a perfect justification girasole04 2004-12-21 08:08 am UTC (link)
	amen. (Reply to this) (Parent)

	falconrath 2004-12-22 12:17 pm UTC (link)
	Very interesting, but what's with the color gradient? (Reply to this) (Thread)

	jazzyjess 2004-12-22 01:19 pm UTC (link)
	well, why not? (Reply to this) (Parent)

	falconrath 2004-12-22 12:19 pm UTC (link)
	Oh, I should say how I found this...one of my friends had your anti-prolife gradient thing. (Reply to this)

kahr_ramsus
2004-12-27 11:33 am UTC (link)

Psh, psh... Miss, such arguments are put forth by women who have a poor grasp of mathematics and simple logic.

Unfortunate that they're so willing to live up to the stereotype, yeah?

But the greatest slight is the general unwillingness to argue the matter with anyone who sounds like he might have a faint idea as to what he speaks. If you're so adamant, surely you can defend it... correct?

(Reply to this) (Thread)

	jazzyjess 2004-12-27 05:36 pm UTC (link)
	sure, it's kind of frustrating though. after so long of arguing the same thing, yes- i become less willing to spend my time and energy explaining something that should be clear. meh. (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	kahr_ramsus 2004-12-27 10:35 pm UTC (link)
	You're saying that you cannot back it up, or that you can? (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	what the hell? jazzyjess 2004-12-28 12:09 am UTC (link)
	well obviously i can if i believe so strongly in the statement. i was merely justifying why people might opt not to go into discussion about it. i can understand why. (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: what the hell?

kahr_ramsus
2004-12-28 01:14 am UTC (link)

Sure, if we're talking about some punk kid just looking to rant and rave about every little thing he can get his mind around.

On the other hand, if one refuses to defend an assertion against a respectable, well-regarded opponent, they should be regarded as knowing nothing of what they speak. No attention should be given to their pleas, as proposals without merit deserve no consideration. Isn't that right?

So, if you can defend it... you'll do so, right?

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: what the hell?

jazzyjess
2004-12-31 07:52 pm UTC (link)

oh, my fault- i thought my defense had already been posted? well anyhow, what exactly isn't clear from what's already been said in this entry? you know, taking sides with an unborn "being", over a living, breathing, woman with a future- is discrimitory in itself (which i've pretty much already covered). but another thing- taking away the right to decide for herself what she does with her own body is basically saying she isn't fit to make this decision, which puts her in an inferior position with something that only she should have control over. it's clearly disrespectul and hateful; i mean, (essentially) if rich, white (often religiously influenced and discriminative) men can make decisions regarding women and their bodies as it is (an issue that shouldn't even involve men), it's pretty obvious that if the tables were turned, abortion wouldn't be questioned. discrimination, prejudice, hate: ALL RELATIVE.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	Re: what the hell? shameinyou 2005-03-30 08:32 am UTC (link)
	taking sides with an unborn "being", over a living, breathing, woman with a future Ummm.....doesn't the un-born child also have a future? (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	Re: what the hell? jazzyjess 2005-03-30 08:43 am UTC (link)
	Not before it's born it doesn't. (Reply to this) (Parent)

	2dumb4politics 2005-03-29 04:54 am UTC (link)
	I wonder if I know you from somewhere. Did you live in Michigan in years past? (Reply to this) (Thread)

	jazzyjess 2005-03-29 04:56 am UTC (link)
	Nope! What makes you think we knew eachother? (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	2dumb4politics 2005-03-29 01:47 pm UTC (link)
	The red hair and political awareness. But, you don't have blue eyes. (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	jazzyjess 2005-03-29 02:13 pm UTC (link)
	Heh, I have brown hair and sometimes blue/sometimes green eyes. The red looking hair is from the lighting inthe icon. :p (Reply to this) (Parent)

	jazzyjess 2005-03-29 02:14 pm UTC (link)
	But hey, would you like to be friends? (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	2dumb4politics 2005-03-29 02:21 pm UTC (link)
	That would be dandy, almost fine and dandy. (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	jazzyjess 2005-03-29 05:48 pm UTC (link)
	Excellent. (Reply to this) (Parent)

shameinyou
2005-03-30 08:22 am UTC (link)

I disagree with you on this one. I am pro-life and I don't hate women, in fact I'm a woman myself. I won't try to make an arguement for the entire pro-life movement but I am pro-life because I feel that the un-born childs life is equal too the womans life. I suppose where the biggest disagreement with pro-lifers and pro-choicers is if the un-born child is a human being or not.

I guess if someone doesn't think it's a human than putting the un-born child on the same level as the woman would seem outrageous, but you have to keep in mind that pro-lifers aren't sitting around saying "We know that this un-born child isn't a human, but we are going to pretend that it is just to bring women down!! *evil laugh*" Pro-lifers honestly and fully believe in thier heart that the un-born child is a human and therefore is entitled to the same rights as any other human being.

Also I love the arguement that pro-life is misogyny because many of the un-born children that the pro-lifers "value more than women" are also women.

This is an issue that I don't think people will ever fully agree on. I think in the end people need to agree to disagree.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

dannigrl212
2005-04-07 02:50 am UTC (link)

Why are we as a culture so focused on life?
Would it be better to have a society with happy, productive, secur people, or one with shit-loads of crime, unhappiness, and unstability?

I'm going to take a bet and assume that you understand the arguements behind the pro-choice mentality. It's about a woman's right to have her own life. Consequently- the decisions that women make are generally those that best affect herself-- and by proxy-- society. (There have been studies that show that the unexpected drop in crime in the mid 1990's was correlated with the legalisation of abortions in the seventies)

PS- I SERIOUSLY don't understand this culture of life stuff that Bush is spewing.
PPS- If you eat meat-- why is it any more wrong to abort a fetus before they are able to think/feel/breathe (I mean, YOUNG), than kill a fully developped cow/chicken/pig/turkey etc?
What about when they are raised and tortured?

(Reply to this) (Parent)

brine_wings
2005-07-27 10:48 pm UTC (link)

Sorry to jump in here, but your last comment "I think in the end people need to agree to disagree" struck me as a possible... weakness in your argument. What I mean is, if you believe the only real way to "solve" the disagreement is to suggest we all just allow for the other side's opinion, then wouldn't you consider yourself pro-choice? If I'm not being clear, let me explain.

Pro-lifers generally believe (correct me if I'm mistaken) that there ought to be laws against abortion so that these "little human fetuses" will all have their right to live. I mean, that's what it's all about, right? The Laws. So, if you think that it's okay for us all to disagree and have our own opinion on the matter, would you also say it's alright for those women who disagree to get an abortion if they choose to?

So I guess what I'm saying is, if you DO in fact believe that everyone is allowed their own opinion, then I think you are pro-choice. That is not to say you support abortion, because that is NOT what pro-choice stands for, and don't believe anyone who tells you otherwise. Pro-choice is soundly the belief in the RIGHT to CHOOSE. So you can disagree with the fundamental fabric of abortion, but if you think that everyone is allowed their own opinion... then you are pro-choice.

Something perhaps to think about. *shrug*

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	jazzyjess 2005-07-28 01:32 am UTC (link)
	I couldn't have said it better, myself. (Reply to this) (Parent)

	fire_tears 2005-10-23 05:52 am UTC (link)
	Love it. I agree, and I'm snitching it for my userinfo. Thanks so much for this. ♥ (Reply to this) (Thread)

	jazzyjess 2005-11-07 06:40 pm UTC (link)
	:) (Reply to this) (Parent)

(Deleted post)

jazzyjess
2005-11-07 06:39 pm UTC (link)

I'm glad you're open minded about the issue. Just to clarify, I've never met anyone who would use abortion merely as a form of birth control. Abortion should most definitely NOT be used in that way. However, like you said, it is not my choice to decide what another does with her body. I'm "pro-life"; who isn't? I don't think anyone is "pro-abortion". As far as I'm concerned, people are either pro-choice or anti-choice. Also, just to clarify, the whole pro-choice movement is only 10% about abortion. The rest entails contraceptives, sexual health and education, etc.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

fliesarewaiting
2006-01-30 04:23 am UTC (link)

im surprised that while most people are talking about the right a woman has to choose for herself to lead her own life and leave her future options open and everything for the mother, no one has mentioned how sometims the woman has to make the choice because the conditions available wouldnt be suitable for raising said fetus. the way you're making it sound is that pro-choicers only care about the woman's future, and it's not all about that. its the mother who has to make the choices about what is good for her AND the child! dont be so selfish!

im wayyyyy pro-choice! i love this tag...

(Reply to this) (Thread)

	jazzyjess 2006-01-30 04:38 am UTC (link)
	Agreed; I usually bring up that point in conversation as well. (Reply to this) (Parent)

"Focus on life"

subnivean
2006-02-24 03:44 am UTC (link)

I wonder if anyone (specifically, anyone pro-life) has ever stopped to consider that abortion is the clinical synthesis of something that women's bodies do all the time? I mean, many women abort before they even know they're pregnant, simply because the fetus isn't developing properly or the woman's body isn't ready to carry a child. Now, if our bodies can make this decision based on biological factors, why shouldn't we be allowed to make that decision based on larger societal/psychological/personal circumstances?

(Reply to this)

	heebee 2006-03-19 07:09 am UTC (link)
	Thank you for this. The associated quote is something I've long felt, but couldn't put into words adequately. (Reply to this)

vyache
2006-05-01 10:34 pm UTC (link)

Greetings, I'm an environmental science student who stumbled upon this discussion through a friend of a friend's journal. I just wanted to add some material from a direction some people might not have thought about.

Abortion is consistent with nature and evolution. It might seem counter productive to destroy the carrier of one's genes and one might think abortion might choose against those with a mind to abort. However, abortion appears to be an effective female reproductive tactic that increases the reproductive success of those who practice it. A female has a limited number of viable gametes (eggs) and pays a considerable physiological price for each offspring reared. It makes sense to time one's pregnancy for an optimum of resource availability (money and time) and health. When it comes to female reproductive success, quality is more important than quantity.

It's not the same for men who are genetically predisposed to cheat because historically they invest much less in their offspring. Lots of sperm cells and lots of girl friends mean a male is more likely to pass on his DNA. (e.g. Genghis Kahn)

Infanticide is also very natural, especially infanticide of female offspring as happens in many indigenous cultures. It makes more sense to raise male offspring when life is hard because they are more physically able to acquire the resources needed to keep the whole family group alive.

I'm pro-choice because I don't think the government should have a goddamned thing to say about my fecundity.

(Reply to this)

(39 comments) - (Post a new comment)

Username:		Create an Account Forgot your login or password? Login w/ OpenID
Password:
	Remember Me
	English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…

About

Help

Get Involved

Legal

LJ Labs

Store